Every few months, a wise head predicts the end of Intelligent Designin time for the next uproar. Darwin's Nemesis, a collection of essays in honor of Phillip Johnsonthe Berkeley law professor whose Darwin on Trial started the controversy in 1991helps readers understand why id cannot simply go away. Long before Johnson, many scientists objected to Darwinism, but lacked a framework for their objections in an academic environment committed to reductive materialism. Johnson's legal approach provided that framework.

Steve Meyer's analysis of the Cambrian explosion, reprinted here, should have interested only the few paleontologists who really care about extinct organisms from half a billion years ago. His paper instead became headline news, because it challenged Darwinism.

Mathematician William Dembski, Johnson's successor as informal leader of the id community, offers reflections on how a small, beleaguered band of scientists succeeded in bringing their issues to the front page. One reason he suggests is that id is not a top-down community and thus is less vulnerable to politically correct scientific orthodoxy. As this volume demonstrates, we can expect more such uproars in the coming years.